From: "Michael Davies" <miser17@epix.net>
To: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com
Date:          Fri, 27 Feb 1998 16:49:16 +0000
Subject:       Re: DEKTOS fixed

I had to fix a thing or two in this letter:

Mark wrote:
> I have found this interesting, always enjoying reading the discussion
> on Crosstalk concerning Thomas's dependence or independence.  I note
> that Tuckett in the *NovT* article draws attention to the same example
> with the same basic point:
> 
>     "Many have argued that DEKTOS in Lk 4.24 is LkR, the whole verse
>     being Luke's redactional equivalent of Mk 6.4, redacted in the
>     light of the Isaiah quotation in Lk 4.17-19 (DEKTOS in v. 19).
>     Hence Th. presupposes LkR and is thus shown to be dependent here
>     on Luke's gospel.  However, this synoptic analysis is not
>     universally accepted, and others have argued (e.g. on
>     form-critical grounds) that Luke is quite independent of Mark at
>     this point."  (p. 143).

> In a footnote Tuckett "would side with those who would see Luke's
> version here as LkR, but the text is clearly open to more than one
> interpretation in this context."


31) Jesus said: "A prophet is not acceptable in his own country,
neither does a physician work cures upon those that know him."

A couple observations here. 

1. If we assume Thomasine dependence then Thomas MUST have
taken its second line from a synthesis of Mark 6:5 and so, in what I 
still say is a complete reversion of all known oral-to-text 
tendencies in Christian tradition, THOMAS invented a proverbial saying
from a narrative. 

Luke kept the proverbial part of Mark
and discarded the narrative part BUT imbedded the proverb into
his own different narrative, so Luke did something different
than Thomas.

2. AND Thomas must then have copied Luke 4:24 for the first line.
So Thomas must have used two different sources to produce a single
two line proverb, the second line of which is contradictory to 
everything we know about Jesus (even Thomas 4 hints at knowledge
of Jesus as a healer, although this isn't something Thomas is much
interested in). 

3. Frankly, I think that imagining this procedure is way over the 
line, especially since the Mark // Luke versions of the first line 
are semantically the same. It all works much more neatly to assume
that Mark knew Thomas (or the Thomas version from oral trad)
and made narrative out of part of it. Luke too knew at least half
of what Mark knew and discarded the more objectionable part...
for Jesus does, after all, heal those who do know him. 

4. Luke 4:19 speaks of "the acceptable" year of the Lord; 4:24 that 
a no prophet is "acceptable" in his own country. The two are 
completely unrelated conceptually and so it is hard to think that 
Luke had any redactional purpose in using dektos in both places.
He just did.... Does anyone know of an argument why Luke would
have chosen deliberately to make a back-reference to dektos in
this manner... or is it just asserted that he "must" have done so
simply because the two words show up nearby?

5. There are only so many words that could be substituted in this
place, only so many ways of saying the same thing. One should imagine
that oral tradition probably passed along the saying in a variety of 
ways, some with dektos some othewise. Luke had more sources
of information than Mark alone. 

Steve